Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3933 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I trust that the Chief Minister will grab each opportunity as it presents itself, so that we can improve the lot of those people who are involved in drug use; but, most importantly, that we can deal, if we can, with that very important decision, the first decision to get involved in drug use.

I think education is one of the most important features to be addressed. It is of particular concern to me to see reports of very young people involved in activities, which are really not for the young, to support drug habits, and I trust that urgent action will be taken to deal with those issues. For too long in the ACT we have been preoccupied with the single issue. As I have said before, I believe we have lost a lot of ground and have a lot of ground to make up in relation to that matter. I hope we are able to do so, and I hope, by way of education, we are able to discourage people from becoming involved in drug use. At the same time, I trust we are able to help those who have become involved, within the constraints which have been forced upon us by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.

MR MOORE (3.58): Mr Speaker, it will not be too long, I hope, before Ministers who go to such meetings will have met their obligations under what I hope will become the Administration (Interstate Agreements) Act. I hope that the consultation will be undertaken so that we actually know what is going on and can advise Ministers accordingly.

That having been said, Mr Speaker, I must say that the amount of money that John Howard was going to put down for the domestic violence situation - I think the word Mr Berry used was "paltry"; it is certainly the implication of what he said - was paltry. That is absolutely correct. Indeed, Mrs Carnell herself has indicated that she considers the same to be true. It is a huge problem. Unfortunately, I must say that $12m right across Australia comes down to less than a dollar a person, and that is over three years; so, we are probably talking about pretty close to 20c a person a year to deal with such a substantial problem. I think there is a huge disappointment, in that Mrs Carnell in her comments talks about it being a good starting point and, as such, was attacked by Mr Berry. Indeed, it depends on how you interpret a starting point. Perhaps the words "starting point" should have been changed to "a good spot to think about starting". That kind of contribution seems to proceed from a starting point. However, the model domestic violence laws will be, I think, a very important issue for us and something that I look forward to dealing with if I am back here in the next Assembly.

The next issue is the taxation issue. Mr Berry raised the consumption tax. I must say that my view of a progressive tax is probably similar to Mr Berry's in this situation. I see income tax as a progressive tax. In other words, where we talk about a progressive tax, we talk about a tax that means that, the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay. That is opposed to the word "progressive" in the way Mrs Carnell was using it, which was that, the more you buy, the more you pay. The critical fact, to my mind, in the difference between a consumption tax and an income tax is that one is just so much more progressive than the other. I think that is the way in which Mr Berry used the term.

I must say that I have been an opponent of a consumption tax for some years, although I must say that it was not one of the issues that influenced me particularly in the election which John Hewson lost. Most pundits said it was because of a consumption tax.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .